Review Cycle: Second

First
Classification of Paper:
Regular Article Review Other(specify)

Part I. Reviewer Basic Details

Full Name
Date Sent to Reviewer dd/mm/yyyy
Title/Position
Date Recived by
dd/mm/yyyy
Specialization
reviewer Date received
dd/mm/yyyy
Manuscript ID by Editor

Manuscript Title

Part II. Manuscript Rating (Please, rate the article by clicking buttons: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good,
4 =Very good, 5 = Excellent, W = Weight)

No. Criteria N/A 1 2 3 4 5 W Total

1 Does the title reflect central research question
and underlying propositions? 2 0
2 Is the purpose of the research clearly stated in the
abstract and introduction? 1 0
3 Is the significance of the research well explained
at the outset? 1 0
4 Does the paper make a clear contribution to the
area of research? 1 0
5 Is the review of previous literature adequate to
justify hypothesis? 2 0
6 Has a sound theoretical foundation 2 0
been established?
7 Is the material used in the paper original or used
differently? 2 0

8 Is there a logical flow of argument? 1 0

9 Is the paper well presented? 1 0
10 Are the conclusions relevant to the purpose of
the research and derived from the material 2 0
presented in the paper?
11 Does the paper include appropriate references
and citations? 1 0

OVERALL RATE 0
Part III. Additional Comments by Reviewer
The reviewer is expected to provide comment on major strength and weakness of the article design and
methodology and provide useful suggestion to the authors. The review should provide justifiable context for
the editor in decision making process on acceptance or revision or rejection of the manuscript.
Please, write your comment in the below box. The section will be given to author with anonymous
Part IV. Reviewer's Recommendations to the Jounal's Managing Editor
The manuscript should be free from plagiarism, falsification or any fabrications. The reviewer should
identify on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any evidence of low standard of scientific
evidence. Please, provide the comments in the below box, if any. This section will Not be revealed to the
authors(s).
Part V. Recommendation
(Based on the overall rate, please choose one of the below)

OPTIONS

ACCEPT AS IS
– with minor changes that will be done by editorial staff.
(60-66)

ACCEPT WITH MINOR CHANGES

– minor changes that author needs to address.
(48-59)

RETURN TO AUTHOR(S) FOR IMPORTANT MODIFICATIONS

– revision and resubmission to other review process required.
(41-47)

REJECT
(15-40)

ACCEPT AS IS: The manuscript warrants publication as a peer-reviewed article. It is a solid contribution and is well conceived & executed.
ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONS: The manuscript should be accepted after minor revisions as noted in the comments. N.B: Reviewers' comments
should be sufficiently specific and detailed for the author to address issues of concern.
RETURN TO AUTHOR(S) FOR IMPORTANT MODIFICATIONS: The manuscript does not warrant publication in its current form, but it
will warrant publication as a peer-reviewed article with suggested revisions.
REJECT: The manuscript does not warrant publication as a peer-reviewed article.

Part VI. Contact Details and Signature of Reviewer

(Please, fill the boxes mentioned below)

Mailing Address

Email

Telephone Number Phone Number

Signature Date